Greg Milliken

Modern Promiscuity

8-17-2007

Modern Promiscuity

Guys --

You know when I asked about the food analogy some people make in regard to sex. How you can't stick with one meal for the rest of your life because that would be boring. The analogy works two ways: it states that one person could never satisfy another for an entire lifetime, because they would just get tired of "eating" each other. The second way the analogy works is to say that any one *form* of sex is too boring to sustain someone for a lifetime. The second meaning is somewhat less important since the analists just want anal for the rest of their lives anyway, so they really refute themselves on that point.

So my questions are: if you put a bunch of trash in a condom, say the juice that collects at the bottom of a garbage bag or a dumpster by the end of the week, and swallow it whole and sealed, would it be safe? Would it be healthy?

Well in answer to the first one, I suppose it would be safe enough assuming the condom didn't break and release the trash juice into your body. So we'd have to rely on the condom being able to withstand the rigors of digestion, which it may or may not be able to do.

So in terms of safety, there is some measure of safety obtained, but perhaps not enough to convince most people to try swallowing a condom filled with trash juice.

So why do the analists insist that condoms will protect them from all manner of STDs when condoms weren't designed to withstand the rigors of anal penetration? Chances are the trash juice contains less permanent and less deadly microbes than the ejaculate from a stranger.

Of course, there's the consideration that when an analist is being penetrated, he claims that he feels pleasure. On the other hand, swallowing a condom would likely not produce any feeling of pleasure in most people. But my critique is only against the risk. If someone is willing to risk taking someone's ejaculate inside of them with a condom, shouldn't they also be willing to trust the condom to prevent the trash juice from escaping into their bowels? Go ahead and try it at the next pride festival. Set up a booth with condoms filled with trash juice and see how many people are willing to swallow them. I bet you not many will.

But what about the second question? Is consuming this condom filled with trash juice healthy? At best it's an indigestible foreign body that will exit as it entered, providing no additional nutritional value as it passes through. At worst it will release a festering pool of microbes that stand a good chance of making you very ill. So obviously the worst case is that the condom is very unhealthy.

But what about the best case? On the surface, it seems merely harmless, but what if that's all you consume? What if every time you ate something, it was a trash-filled condom that added no nutritional value to your diet? You would die from malnourishment.

So if you treat sex like food, we can definitively say that at worst it will make you ill and ultimately kill you, or at best it can only be done if balancing the trash with something healthy.

We can also say definitively that promiscuity as a lifestyle is a non-starter. If all you ever do is hook up with strangers (or the occasional fuck buddy) then you're just putting more and more trash into your body. There MUST be something more to life than an endless cycle of promiscuity, as concluded from the analists' own analogy.

But what's most interesting about taking this analogy and extending it is how closely the conclusions mirror reality. We have study after study showing how married men tend to live longer, healthier, happier lives than their less attached counterparts.

The second quip that analists love to use on naive young men (or they did when I was a naive young man at any rate) is that guys are naturally promiscuous. Is this true? Possibly. Is it historically evident? Perhaps. But it fails to take into account something that is historically proven: guys are particularly selective.

Modern promiscuity leaves this fact behind. Instead of having multiple partners that meet a selective set of criteria, today's man is supposed to want any above-average piece of ass thrown at him. Gag me. This portrayal shows men as out-of-control hedonistic dimwits.

Personally, I have no desire to bed every hot guy I see. Sure, they are hot, but there needs to be something more to get my attention. I have a brain and I know what I want from a partner. My criteria can't be met by looking a certain way. In fact, I find guys attractive that look all kinds of different ways. So if looks are supposed to be the only criterium modern men take into account, that alone proves that most guys don't want promiscuity. If they did, they would only want slightly shorter blond guys with uncut penises that curve up etc. Instead, most guys have varying tastes, and find a variety of different looks attractive.

So we can conclude definitively that modern promiscuity is not about looks. It's about a shared view of modern promiscuity. You're promiscuous, I'm promiscuous, so let's fuck. There are no other criteria. Sure, guys may have standards in terms of looks (amazingly, some don't), but to say that looks are the basis for modern promiscuity is fallacious. Modern promiscuity is based on: modern promiscuity.

So what the analists have done is take a historically proven trait of men: selectivity, and turned it into a way to perpetuate the status quo: sexual promiscuity. Sure, they've thrown in some psychobabble and fogged up the issue, but ultimately sexual promiscuity is rooted in itself.

Kind of makes it clear why promiscuous men are only looking out for #1 doesn't it?

Anyway, I've taken time out of my day off to write this analysis up and post it for you guys, but I hear from Bill that you aren't donating. It's great that I've provided this information for you -- but it's not going to mean anything if you don't donate.

I can sit here and post 100 bits of good advice that won't do any good if we can't afford to reach out and get to the people out there who wholly agree with me here, but haven't found a way to put their thoughts into words. There are guys out there who go along to get along, when really they'd be happier living life the way they want to, having sex with partners they want to have it with, and in the manner they prefer. But they don't know about the frot movement. Not a lot of people know about us.

But this movement is much more important than just promoting frot sex and fidelity and masculinity: this is a place for the real men of these United States, and perhaps even the world, to get together and oppose the totalitarian powers that seek to oppress them. This is a place where reason and the common cause of brotherhood brings men together to show the world that man is not really some nelly queen sitting in a bath house waiting to get fucked.

Man is POWERFUL and manhood is VIRTUOUS.

Man doesn't make himself voluntarily weak so there is no one to oppose violence.

Man is STRONG and FIGHTS to OPPOSE VIOLENCE.

Man doesn't sit back and let religious and political tyrants make pointless rules for him to follow.

Man STANDS UP and FIGHTS TOTALITARIANISM.

But apparently man sits at home in front of his computer downloading porn all day, and never donates a dime so that we can spread the truth of what real men are.

Why not?

Donate a small amount, $5 a month.

231 years ago, a group of REAL men were willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in order to oppose tyranny and create this great country that I live in.

Throughout history, group after group of great men have overthrown tyrants and defended their borders from invasion by tyrants.

And now, again, there is a group of great men willing to overthrow the bonds of oppression and free man from a dainty little cage with a lovely floral design.

But we can't do it without your help. So donate.

Greg Milliken

Bill Weintraub

Re: Modern Promiscuity

8-18-2007

Thank you Greg.

A terrific post!

Guys -- Greg says,

Personally, I have no desire to bed every hot guy I see. Sure, they are hot, but there needs to be something more to get my attention. I have a brain and I know what I want from a partner. My criteria can't be met by looking a certain way. In fact, I find guys attractive that look all kinds of different ways. So if looks are supposed to be the only criterium modern men take into account, that alone proves that most guys don't want promiscuity. If they did, they would only want slightly shorter blond guys with uncut penises that curve up etc. Instead, most guys have varying tastes, and find a variety of different looks attractive.

So we can conclude definitively that modern promiscuity is not about looks. It's about a shared view of modern promiscuity. You're promiscuous, I'm promiscuous, so let's fuck. There are no other criteria. Sure, guys may have standards in terms of looks (amazingly, some don't), but to say that looks are the basis for modern promiscuity is fallacious. Modern promiscuity is based on: modern promiscuity.

This is exactly right:

modern promiscuity is not about looks. It's about a shared view of modern promiscuity. You're promiscuous, I'm promiscuous, so let's fuck. There are no other criteria. ...Sure, guys may have standards in terms of looks (amazingly, some don't), but to say that looks are the basis for modern promiscuity is fallacious. Modern promiscuity is based on: modern promiscuity.

"modern promiscuity is not about looks. It's about a shared view of modern promiscuity. You're promiscuous, I'm promiscuous, so let's fuck. There are no other criteria. ... Modern promiscuity is based on: modern promiscuity."

I know I'm repeating Greg's point, but there's a reason.

And that is that Greg is exactly right.

Greg submitted this post on July 4.

And I've been so pre-occupied and occupied with Patrick that it just sat in my inbox.

And then, lo and behold, on August 12 the New York Times ran an excellent piece by Gina Kolata examining the mathematical realities of promiscuity.

You can read her piece here, and you can read my post commenting on it here.

Turns out that the way most of us think about promiscuity is based on a mathematical fallacy.

We assume that men are significantly more promsicuous than women.

Like Greg says, "by nature."

But in the Times piece, Dr David Gale, emeritus professor of mathematics at UC Berkeley, points out that surveys which "reveal," for example that men have seven partners on average and women four -- have to be false.

Just on the grounds of simple mathematics.

There's more.

Because in the article, sex surveyors agree with Dr Gale.

Oh yes, they say, we know those figures can't be right.

Yet, as Dr Gale points out, when the figures are published in their various learned forms, there are NO asterisks attached to the data saying -- "This data must be false."

And that's a problem, says Dr Gale.

Because the figures then become part of what is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Which is exactly what Greg has said:

Modern promiscuity is "about a shared view of modern promiscuity. You're promiscuous, I'm promiscuous, so let's fuck. There are no other criteria. ... Modern promiscuity is based on: modern promiscuity."

Boy!!!

Is he right!

Wow!

I'm impressed.

Because Greg got it right more than a month ago.

He didn't need the New York Times or Dr Gale to tell him that --

Modern promiscuity is NOT about nature.

It's about modern promiscuity and "a SHARED VIEW of modern promiscuity."

That's what it is.

A consensus.

And that's particularly true within the gay male community, where enormous peer pressure is brought to bear on "naive young men," as Greg says, and not so naive older men, I would add -- to be incessantly multipartnered and pansexually promiscuous.

And as I point out in The myth of male promiscuity, which comments on Dr Gale's point, that "shared view," that consensus, which in its hetero root is based on a mathematical impossibility, results in a BETRAYAL of the historic reality and the present day needs of MEN who LOVE MEN.

Because the historic reality is that MEN who LOVE MEN are NOT promiscuous.

They are Faithful.

Often spectacularly so.

As we just saw, for example, in The Deification of Antinous.

Now -- Greg ends his post by calling upon you to donate so that we can get the word out about these very basic facts.

Greg's right.

The present system is oppressive not just of you, but of ALL MEN.

And it's based on LIES.

We're telling the TRUTH.

About MEN, MASCULINITY, PHALLUS, and FIDELITY.

Help us get that TRUTH out.

And help yourself.

Thank you Greg.

You're a true Warrior.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

---

---

---

Add a reply to this discussion

Back to Personal Stories

---